Wed, 30 Dec 2009

I've been rude
to a friend of mine (Simon Phipps) on Twitter. On the one hand, why
should I be rude to a friend of mine? On the other hand, if I don't call him
out for quoting stupid things (as if he agrees with them), then how much
of a friend do I consider him? If I'm not willing to be harsh with him,
then I can't value his friendship much. If I'm not able to be harsh with him,
then he doesn't value my friendship much.

In particular, I feel very strongly that the wealthy should be responsible
for the poor. "Responsible" means several things. First, it means only
lending aid appropriately. "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime." It also means
charity should only be for the deserving. "Give an ailing man a crutch and
you have gotten him back on his feet. Give a healthy man a crutch and you
have taken away his ability to walk."

Responsible also means not using the power of wealth against him. This
is a tough one. It's very easy to look at someone who is not as wealthy
as you, and decide how they need to be helped. Everyone who has more than
someone else can fall into this trap. Certainly my country does it all the
time, sending food aid to countries that can't use that food, or to countries
where their competitive advantage is that food.

And responsible means consistently advocating for free markets (not using
the power of wealth) and private property. When my friends harm that cause,
I get very upset. I can understand my enemies, and the people that hate me
advocating for coercion. But my friends? That cuts me to the quick.

Thu, 24 Dec 2009

All evil starts with one person threatening to hurt another person.
The purpose of government is to threaten to hurt people (that's what makes
it different from any other organization). Thus, the only way that
government can not be evil is if it only threatens to hurt people who
threaten to hurt other people. When government undertakes any other
activity, it becomes a source of evil.

Thu, 17 Dec 2009

A society of libertarians is not an oxymoron. Libertarians aren't loners; in fact we're usually even more socially oriented than socialists. What we are is individualists; meaning that all relations between individuals should be voluntary. Socialists think that it's acceptable for some relations to happen at the point of a gun. Note that someone may hold individualist and socialist ideas; while they may think of themselves as pragmatic, compromising towards a worthy goal; instead they're just confused. You can't compromise on a principle, otherwise you lose it entirely. For example, it's wrong to kill; thus it's wrong for a group to kill; thus it's wrong for a government to kill; thus capital punishment is wrong. At best it's a cheaper method of life imprisonment -- but when you compromise your principles to save money, you are not principled at all.